Re: Towards Solid Lite

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:55 AM Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus..eu>
wrote:

> [...]
>
> Here is my idea for a complexity ladder:
>
> 1. Everything is either public or private to the “owner”. Authorization
> is much simpler, authentication need not be decentralized.
>
> 2. Everything is only writable by the “owner”, but other people can
> read specific parts with (read-only) WAC. Authentication is done with
> HTTP signatures.
>
> 3. The DPoP-based authentication scheme is supported.
>
> [...]
>

this is a helpful framing... i wonder about a step 0 on the complexity
ladder where everything is read-only -- a "solid zero" app (so to speak)
would not have to reconcile updates, only produce rdf representations
(whether based on a graph database, compute task, handwritten turtle files,
or whatever) that could be served according to whichever auth approach from
the rest of the ladder (tho each slightly simpler, because read-only)

thinking this way in part because the idea of "solid lite" reminds me of
the gemini protocol <https://geminiprotocol.net> (a project i'm not part of
but have enjoyed reading about (like solid) that is trying for a better
internet ethos (like solid)) -- a minimalist read-only subset of solid
could be a similar size and shape to gemini
<https://geminiprotocol.net/docs/faq.gmi#412-im-familiar-with-http-and-html-how-is-gemini-different>
(but using a subset of http instead of a bespoke network protocol and a
handful of rdf mediatypes instead of 'text/gemini')

would the simplicity of a read-only interface make it an easy step on the
path toward adopting full solid, or would that remove so much it wouldn't
be worth adopting on its own? (or, as is likely, have i misunderstood
something important?)

- abram axel booth